Judgment :- 1. Revision Petitioners challenge the judgments of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) in A. As. 2164/82, 2165/82, 2166/82 and 2167/82. 2. Contention of the revision petitioners is that the respondents who filed applications under S.80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act have nothing to do with the revision petitioners as their predecessor obtained leasehold right over 43 cents in R.S. 6/1 excluding the four houses in the property in the occupation of the respondents and so they cannot get assignment of the property in the possession of the revision petitioners. 3. Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that in view of S.80A (6) of the Act a kudikidappukaran is not entitled to purchase any land which is not in the lawful possession of the person who holds the land in which a kudikidappu is situate. The short question to be considered is whether a landlord can defeat the lawful right of a kudikidappukaran by leasing the property in which the kudikidappu is situate to another person. Contention of the revision petitioners is that as the property excluding the houses in it has been" leased to Govindan Master by the landlord, it cannot be said that the landlord is in lawful possession of the property and so the respondents cannot purchase any portion of the property in the possession of the revision petitioners who succeeded Govindan Master. There is no force in the above contention as Govindan Master obtained the lease subject to the four kudikidappus in the property. It is the admitted case that even at the time when the revision petitioners obtained leasehold right in the property there existed four houses in the property and the respondents were in occupation of the same. Knowing fully well about the existence of the said buildings and its occupation by the respondents, the lease was taken by Govindan Master, the predecessor of the revision petitioners. As the respondents were in occupation of the houses and as they could claim kudikidappu right, the lease in favour of Govindan Master cannot have any overriding effect on the right of the kudikidappukars. By obtaining such a lease it cannot be contended that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of S.80-B of the Act. Revenue Inspector's report also shows that the respondents are having separate possession of plots around their homesteads. By obtaining such a lease it cannot be contended that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of S.80-B of the Act. Revenue Inspector's report also shows that the respondents are having separate possession of plots around their homesteads. By taking a lease of a property where kudikidappukars are already in possession, the lessee cannot invoke S.80 A (6) of the Act to thwart their legitimate rights under the Act. The Appellate Authority was justified in affirming the orders of the Land Tribunal. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petitions. All the C.R. Ps. are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.